Again, the voting patterns of the city do not determine the voting patterns of the logicians. The voting patterns of the logicians may well be heavily Democrat, and I'd expect the faculty at UC Berkeley is. Its not your hypothesis I'm disputing, I think your hypothesis is perfectly valid.

Obviously most logicians are in academia, and most of academia is leftist...

So no, I didn't say what you said I said. And no, I haven't been owned. You on the other hand are unable to prove something that is pretty obvious, its like being unable to prove the sky is blue. It speaks poorly of your, well, logic.

Again, the voting patterns of the city do not determine the voting patterns of the logicians. The voting patterns of the logicians may well be heavily Democrat, and I'd expect the faculty at UC Berkeley is. Its not your hypothesis I'm disputing, I think your hypothesis is perfectly valid.

Obviously most logicians are in academia, and most of academia is leftist...

So no, I didn't say what you said I said. And no, I haven't been owned. You on the other hand are unable to prove something that is pretty obvious, its like being unable to prove the sky is blue. It speaks poorly of your, well, logic.

I already showed that a few of the logicians at Berkeley are Democrats, with no evidence of any Republicans. They are professors in the #1 logic program in the country. Give it up, idiot. Why can't you lying Republicans ever admit defeat?You said:

Again, the voting patterns of the city do not determine the voting patterns of the logicians. The voting patterns of the logicians may well be heavily Democrat, and I'd expect the faculty at UC Berkeley is. Its not your hypothesis I'm disputing, I think your hypothesis is perfectly valid.

Obviously most logicians are in academia, and most of academia is leftist...

So no, I didn't say what you said I said. And no, I haven't been owned. You on the other hand are unable to prove something that is pretty obvious, its like being unable to prove the sky is blue. It speaks poorly of your, well, logic.

I already showed that a few of the logicians at Berkeley are Democrats, with no evidence of any Republicans. They are professors in the #1 logic program in the country. Give it up, idiot. Why can't you lying Republicans ever admit defeat?You said:

Again, the voting patterns of the city do not determine the voting patterns of the logicians. The voting patterns of the logicians may well be heavily Democrat, and I'd expect the faculty at UC Berkeley is. Its not your hypothesis I'm disputing, I think your hypothesis is perfectly valid.

Obviously most logicians are in academia, and most of academia is leftist...

So no, I didn't say what you said I said. And no, I haven't been owned. You on the other hand are unable to prove something that is pretty obvious, its like being unable to prove the sky is blue. It speaks poorly of your, well, logic.

I already showed that a few of the logicians at Berkeley are Democrats, with no evidence of any Republicans. They are professors in the #1 logic program in the country. Give it up, idiot. Why can't you lying Republicans ever admit defeat?You said:

Ferny, thisis one of your craziest performances. When they said you couldn't take it to a higher level, you proved them wrong. Good show, old chap, good show.

You claimed that only the sh**tty logicians are Democrats. Do you still claim that's true? If yes, you are arguing a clearly wrong position. If not, then why the hell did you say that in the first place. Do you not care about the facts? You clearly have no logical abilities to speak of here.

I was obviously being sarcastic, but okay, I'll address your point as if it were a serious one. Then we should probably get back to the issue at hand.

No, I didn't really defend my position, I was essentially playing Devil's advocate to mess with you. It worked.

How am I supposed to know when you Republicans are arguing unreasonable position for the heck of it, as opposed to an unreasonable position seriously. What about your view that the California Senate would be best off with 1 Senator for each county, even if it has just a few thousand people, or Los Angeles' 11 million people. Is that a joke? What about your claim that California will soon be pro-life? Is that a joke? What about your claim that Arnold supported making it harder for himself to fundraise large money from corporations? Is that a joke? You make so many outrageous statements, I can't tell which ones are jokes, and which ones aren't. Perhaps you wait until it's clear that you're losing to decide that it was a joke position.

I was obviously being sarcastic, but okay, I'll address your point as if it were a serious one. Then we should probably get back to the issue at hand.

No, I didn't really defend my position, I was essentially playing Devil's advocate to mess with you. It worked.

How am I supposed to know when you Republicans are arguing unreasonable position for the heck of it, as opposed to an unreasonable position seriously. What about your view that the California Senate would be best off with 1 Senator for each county, even if it has just a few thousand people, or Los Angeles' 11 million people. Is that a joke? What about your claim that California will soon be pro-life? Is that a joke? What about your claim that Arnold supported making it harder for himself to fundraise large money from corporations? Is that a joke? You make so many outrageous statements, I can't tell which ones are jokes, and which ones aren't. Perhaps you wait until it's clear that you're losing to decide that it was a joke position.

Well, you can verify the Arnold thing I'm sure. I saw him say it in the town hall with Sen. Perata.

And perhaps actually reading my posts would give you an indication of when I'm being serious or not.

I was obviously being sarcastic, but okay, I'll address your point as if it were a serious one. Then we should probably get back to the issue at hand.

No, I didn't really defend my position, I was essentially playing Devil's advocate to mess with you. It worked.

How am I supposed to know when you Republicans are arguing unreasonable position for the heck of it, as opposed to an unreasonable position seriously. What about your view that the California Senate would be best off with 1 Senator for each county, even if it has just a few thousand people, or Los Angeles' 11 million people. Is that a joke? What about your claim that California will soon be pro-life? Is that a joke? What about your claim that Arnold supported making it harder for himself to fundraise large money from corporations? Is that a joke? You make so many outrageous statements, I can't tell which ones are jokes, and which ones aren't. Perhaps you wait until it's clear that you're losing to decide that it was a joke position.

Well, you can verify the Arnold thing I'm sure. I saw him say it in the town hall with Sen. Perata.

And perhaps actually reading my posts would give you an indication of when I'm being serious or not.

I did, and it's really not clear, since you say so much absurd stuff. If I ignored the absurd stuff, there wouldn't be much left.